TikTok 'Team Lead' loses unfair dismissal action over selection for redundancy

Gordon Deegan

One of 24 ‘Team-Leads’ to be made redundant by the Irish arm of social media giant, TikTok, last year, has lost his case for unfair dismissal after his selection for redundancy was impartial and not personal.

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) Adjudicator, Monica Brennan, did not uphold Mohur Saleh’s claim for unfair dismissal in April 2024 against TikTok Technology Ltd.

Ms Brennan has dismissed Mr Saleh’s unfair dismissal case after finding that he was selected for redundancy by TikTok Technology Ltd “after an impartial selection process”.

Mr Saleh commenced working for TikTok Technology in July 2020 and was made redundant in April 2024 following a global restructuring of TikTok’s operations.

The reduction in numbers impacted 1,925 employees globally and 289 employees in Ireland.

TikTok Technology told the WRC hearing that the selection criteria for redundancy was made up of performance ratings, leadership principles, Juren test results, and disciplinary record.

The firm stated that if an employee achieved a score above 33 when the criteria were calculated, then they were not at risk of redundancy.

The company stated that 63 team leads were in the selection pool and, of those, 24 were made redundant, and all 24, including Mr Saleh, scored under 33 in the combined selection criteria.

Mr Saleh represented himself at the hearing and raised various issues relating to the scores that he achieved in his performance reviews and a policy knowledge test.

Mr Saleh claimed that his performance review scores from the 2023 mid-year and annual cycles were unfair.

He said that they were subjective, inconsistent, and influenced by personal bias rather than objective data.

Despite consistently exceeding expectations historically, Mr Saleh claimed that his contributions and concerns were ignored by management and HR, creating a hostile work environment.

He stated that he did not have confidence in TikTok Technology’s application of the selection criteria.

Mr Saleh spoke about a lack of support in securing alternative roles, exclusion from opportunities, and contradictory feedback during recruitment processes.

In her findings, Ms Brennan stated that "the question I must answer is whether the selection of the Complainant for redundancy in this case was personal. Was he personally selected in order to terminate his employment? I find that he was not”.

Ms Brennan stated that while she understand Mr Saleh’s perspective that a variety of issues meant that he did not score as highly as he wished in the selection criteria, “that criteria was impersonally applied to all employees and I therefore do not see any grounds upon which to find that the Complainant’s selection was in any way an individual selection of him, personally, for redundancy”.

Ms Brennan also found that, based on the evidence heard, she did not find that Mr Saleh was prejudiced or specifically excluded from recruitment to the available roles during the redundancy period.

Ms Brennan stated that TikTok Technology’s witnesses gave convincing evidence that, given the number of redundancies, there was huge interest in any available roles and it was open to Mr Saleh to apply for any ones that were suitable.

She found that “there is no substantiating evidence to show that he was in any way specifically excluded from these posts."

Ms Brennan found that TikTok Technology’s “selection for redundancy was not unfair as it was based on impartial and impersonal criteria."